Academic Librarians Role in Gatekeeping- The Influence of Vendor

Criss Library 11-2013 Academic Librarians' Role in Gatekeeping: The Influence of Vendor Labeling on Academic Library Collections Melissa Cast-Brede University of Nebraska at Omaha, mcast

Criss Library Faculty Publications Dr C.C and Mabel L Criss Library

11-2013

Academic Librarians' Role in Gatekeeping: The

Influence of Vendor Labeling on Academic Library Collections

Melissa Cast-Brede

University of Nebraska at Omaha, mcast@unomaha.edu

Follow this and additional works at:https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/crisslibfacpub

Part of theLibrary and Information Science Commons

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dr C.C.

and Mabel L Criss Library at DigitalCommons@UNO It has been

accepted for inclusion in Criss Library Faculty Publications by an

authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UNO For more

information, please contact unodigitalcommons@unomaha.edu

Recommended Citation

Cast-Brede, Melissa, "Academic Librarians' Role in Gatekeeping: The Influence of Vendor Labeling on Academic Library Collections"

(2013) Criss Library Faculty Publications 9.

https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/crisslibfacpub/9

FOR THE DEGREE DOCTOR IN PHILOSOPHY IN THE SCHOOL OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

Melissa Cast-Brede Presented on:

Title: Academic librarians’ role in gatekeeping: The influence of vendor labeling on academic library collections

Abstract approved:

Dr Mirah Dow The purpose of this study is to determine the influence of one corporate book vendor on collection holdings in seven Carnegie Class L academic libraries in the areas

of practice of education and educational administration The study uses the

communicative rationality theory of Habermas (1989), the habitus work of Bourdieu (1988; 1993), and the gatekeeping theory of Lewin (1947) as theoretical frameworks for explaining how book vendors serve as a connection between organizations and

individuals and the librarian’s gatekeeping role in collection development Analysis of variance was used to measure overall congruence Library employee size, vendor-

supplied categories, and vendor-supplied labels were examined utilizing chi square test of analysis While statistically significant difference was found in an overall analysis of the book holdings, no significant difference was found in examinations of the vendor-

supplied categories nor vendor-supplied labels indicating congruence and the influence of the book vendor on book collections Findings were mixed in the analyses involving number of library employees Smaller academic libraries of 69 or fewer employees had significantly different collections than the two larger groups of libraries Academic libraries with 70 to 95 employees and academic libraries with 96 or more employees did not have statistically different book collections indicating congruence Book vendors were found to work at the routine level of analysis and to act as intermediaries who create legitimizing structures that influenced book selection

Keywords: Academic Libraries, Gatekeeping, Approval Plans, Book Vendors, Collection Development, Selection, Communicative Rationality, Habitus

ACADEMIC LIBRARIANS’ ROLE IN GATEKEEPING: THE INFLUENCE OF VENDOR LABELING ON ACADEMIC LIBRARY COLLECTIONS

by Melissa A Cast-Brede Emporia, KS November 2013 -

A Dissertation Presented to EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincere gratitude goes to my dissertation chair, Dr Mirah Dow, for all her help, support, and genuine interest Her patience and wisdom guided me well throughout the doctoral program I also thank the other members of my committee Dr Gwen

Alexander was firm when needed and flexible when necessary Dr John Hill acted as my white knight and helped me to stay in the program when I thought I would have to give

up on the doctoral process All three committee members were generous in their support, encouragement, and dedication to the process

I am very thankful for the support and patience of my husband, Kent, who made me laugh even when I didn’t feel like it, and my parents who knew when to ask questions,

when to give encouragement, and when to supply cake

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURES xii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

Librarians and Libraries Identify with Books .2

Identity 2

Library Purpose 3

National Collection 3

Library Values 4

Librarian Expertise 5

Danton 6

Edelman 6

Atkinson 7

Advent of Outsourcing, Book Vendors, and Approval Plans .7

Significance 10

Considerations for the Patron 11

Considerations for Collection Development Librarians 11

Considerations for Academic Libraries 12

Considerations for Universities 13

Considerations for Scholarly Communication 15

Summary of Concerns 16

2 BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE Critical Theory 17

Communicative rationality 18

Habitus 20

Gatekeeping Theory 22

Levels of Analysis 23

Individual 23

Routine 24

Organizational 25

Extramedia 26

Routine Level In-Depth 27

Book Vendors and Approval Plans 29

History 30

Effectiveness and return on investment 31

Financial Benefits 32

Adequacy of approval plans 32

Effects of book vendors 33

Missed Works 34

Overlap 35

3 METHOD Purpose of the Study 37

Variables 37

Independent Variable Descriptions 37

Dependent Variable Descriptions 37

Research Questions, Sub-Questions, and Data Analysis 38

Limitations of the Study 43

Definitions of Terms 43

Procedures 45

Demonstration 46

4 RESULTS Purpose of the Study 49

Independent Variable Description 49

Dependent Variable Description 49

Research Question #1 Results 50

Research Question #2 Results 51

Research Question #3 Results 52

Research Question #4 Results 53

Research Question #5 Results 54

Research Question #6 Results 55

Research Question #7 Results 56

Research Question #8 Results 57

5 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION 59

Conclusions 60

Research Question #1 Conclusion 60

Research Question #2 Conclusion 61

Research Question #3 Conclusion 62

Research Question #4 Conclusion 63

Research Question #5 Conclusion 63

Research Question #6 Conclusion 64

Research Question #7 Conclusion 65

Research Question #8 Conclusion 65

Discussion 66

Findings Related to the Literature 66

Implications for Practice 69

Implications for Future Research 70

Conclusion 71

REFERENCES 73

APPENDICES 94

Appendix A 94

Appendix B 95

Appendix C 96

Appendix D 98

Appendix E 99

Appendix F 100

Appendix G 101

Appendix H 102

Appendix I 103

Appendix J 104

Appendix K 105

Appendix L 106

Appendix M 107

Appendix N 108

PERMISSION TO COPY 109

List of Tables

Participating Libraries by University Name, Library Name, and Library Director Name

96

Post-test Seven-Group Comparative Survey Design by Library Location, Study

Constraints, Independent Variables, and Dependent Variables .99

Analysis of Variance Comparison of Seven Medium-Sized Peer University Libraries for Frequency of Practice of Education Holdings .100 University Libraries with Significantly Greater Mean Frequency of Practice of Education

Holdings 101

Analysis of Variance Comparison of Seven Medium-Sized Peer University Libraries for Frequency of Education Administration Holdings .102 University Libraries with Significantly Greater Mean Frequency of Educational

Administration Holdings 103 Observed Frequencies for the Number of Library Employees at Seven Medium-Sized Peer Universities with the Post-test Same Book Vendor Titles Available Compared To Averaged Practice of Education Holdings 104 Observed Frequencies for the Number of Library Employees at Seven Medium-Sized Peer Universities with the Post-test Same Book Vendor Titles Available Compared To Averaged Educational Administration Holdings .105

Observed Frequencies Book Vendor Labeled Content Areas General-Academic AC), Advanced-Academic (ADV-AC), Professional (PROF), and Popular (POP) at

(GEN-Seven Medium-Sized Peer Universities with the Post-test Same Book Vendor Available Titles Compared to Averaged Practice of Education Holdings 106 Observed Frequencies Book Vendor Labeled Content Areas General-Academic (GEN-AC), Advanced-Academic (ADV-AC), Professional (PROF), and Popular (POP) at

Seven Medium-Sized Peer Universities with the Post-test Same Book Vendor Available Titles Compared to Averaged Educational Administration Holdings .107

Observed Frequencies Book Vendor Labeled Basic-Recommended,

Research-Recommended, Research-Essential, Specialized, Supplementary, and Books without a Label at Seven Medium-Sized Peer Universities with the Post-test Same Book Vendor Available Titles Compared to Averaged Practice of Education Holdings .108

Observed Frequencies Book Vendor Labeled Basic-Recommended,

Research-Recommended, Specialized, Supplementary, and Books without a Label at Seven

Medium-Sized Peer Universities with the Post-test Same Book Vendor Available Titles Compared to Averaged Educational Administration Holdings .109

List of Figures Example of Book Vendor Notification Records .95 YBP/L&H Select Profiling Definitions .97 YBP/L&H Select Profiling Definitions, Page 2 .98

Chapter 1

In a society composed of many corporate chains, customers usually expect to encounter a high level of homogeneity in products Customers know exactly what a hamburger from McDonald’s will look and taste like no matter where in the world it is ordered Is this homogeneity in products right for libraries and library collections? Many library leaders express concern that librarians are moving away from traditional in-house, user-centered collection development practices to outsourced collection services by book vendors that result in high levels of homogeneity, or stated another way, cookie cutter library collections The perceived problem is that academic libraries across America with book vendor-driven collections may have a critical loss of librarian expertise and as a result have become too homogenized and unable to reflect local needs

Library outsourced services by vendors include the purchasing of book records

from the library cooperative OCLC Online Computer Library Center, formerly known as

the Ohio College Library Center, and the acquisition of books through intermediary book

vendors A particular concern with the acquisition of books through intermediary book

vendors is in academic library collection development and the practice of establishing profiles with third-party book vendors for the automatic ordering of books based on specific criteria Many professional librarians fear that collection development, the creation and maintenance of a set of resources for a particular community (Bullis & Smith, 2011; Edelman, 1979; Haines, 1950; Johnson, 2009; McColvin, 1925; Oder, 1997), has become operationalized and eliminated decision-making by professional librarians who have historically served as gatekeepers for the facilitation of public

discourse This perceived shift from librarian expertise to operationalized acquisitions

leads to the need to investigate the influence of book vendors on library holdings,

particularly in academic libraries This introductory chapter explains the problem by highlighting the importance of books, the role of books in libraries, the expertise of the librarian as illustrated in seminal collection development models, the history of library use of book vendors, and the place of librarians as information gatekeepers to provide context for this investigation of the influence of book vendors on library holdings

Librarians and Libraries Identify with Books

Many professionals in library and information science (LIS) see themselves as gatekeepers facilitating the flow of quality knowledge on its way to society

(Chamberlain, 1991; Lu, 2007; Metroyer-Duran, 1993; Oder, 1997) The LIS field is an interdisciplinary field focused on information from creation to use with the purpose of access to information and the goal of resolution of human problems (Rubin, 2004) Even

in a digital world, the book remains a highly used medium for the dissemination of

knowledge Consequently, books today continue to be fundamentally entwined with library identity, purpose, and values

Identity A recent study by OCLC of patron perceptions indicated that the

identity of libraries was very closely tied to books despite the significant increase in online offerings such as electronic journals, streaming media, and chat reference services (DeRose, Cantrell, Carlson, Gallagher, Hawk & Sturtz, 2011) When people define libraries, they think of books (Osburn, 2006) This perception is shared by many

librarians As Merle Jacob stated, “Libraries have one product and that is their

collection” (Oder, 1997, p 29) Indeed, the connection between books and libraries goes back over a hundred years when Melvil Dewey first uttered the phrase that would become

the motto of the American Library Association (ALA): “The best reading, for the largest number, at the least cost” (Berry, 2004, p 8) Even though the motto and its association with books has been challenged multiple times, it remains

Library purpose The connection between books and libraries has often fueled

what many librarians believe to be the purpose of libraries In the 1850s, George Ticknor encouraged the city of Boston to ensure that the Boston Public Library be accessible to all citizens and a place of education for the common person (Harris, 1975) While

Ticknor was primarily concerned with assimilating the recent influx of illiterate

immigrants into American culture, his stance was the beginning of the concept of the library as a place of “egalitarianism and democracy” (Harris, 1975, p 4) Dewey (1906) clearly echoed the sentiment when he wrote that libraries should cooperate “to supply books for common use” (p 55) Today, many professional librarians align their

professional standards with democratic ideals (Alstad & Curry, 2003; Andersen, 2005; Harris & Sodt, 1981; Leckie & Buschman, 2007; McCabe, 2001; Wiegand, 1999) In assisting community members to become an informed citizenry through access to quality resources and public venues for rational discourse, librarians often view their professional practice as crucial to the equal access and dissemination of information to all of their constituents

National collection Another concept relevant to librarians’ core values,

including access to all (American Library Association, 2004), is the conceptualization of

a national collection wherein all libraries of the United States combine to form one

collection There is no national collection in the United States (U.S.) in the sense that one entity works to collect everything published Rather, libraries in the U.S informally

collaborate to form a dispersed national collection to ensure a copy of each book is held somewhere and is publicly available (Lee, 2000) Edelman (2006) referred to this as the

“Great Library theory: Give the money to the largest libraries, let them decide what is best, and all will be taken care of” (p 238) The beginning of this concept may have its roots in the work of John Langdon Sibley of Harvard University In the 19th century, Sibley began collecting everything ever published because he believed that future

advances could easily be based on contemporary works (Mexal, 2011) This concern for preserving the national collective knowledge base has remained strong for academic libraries where recently libraries have relied on the major members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) to collectively and comprehensively acquire the majority of books published (Budd & Harloe, 1997) However, increases in publishing output and journal costs have jeopardized this effort As Kyrillidou and Young (2005) reported for ARL, serial expenditures have increased over 300% since 1986 “to the detriment of other budget lines” (p 10)

Library values Foremost in the tradition of libraries is the role of skilled

librarians in selecting materials with the local community as the focus (Curley,

Broderick, & Bonk, 1985; Oder, 1997) As Curley, Broderick and Bonk proclaimed,

“only a dedicated librarian can build a collection” (p 10) For them and others, selection

is where community and library purpose align (Bullis & Smith, 2011; Drury, 1930; Haines, 1950; McColvin, 1925; Ranganathan, 1964) Books historically have been selected based on various criteria of quality and appropriateness for the local community For decades, library leaders such as Lionel McColvin, Helen Haines, and Shiyali

Ramamrita Ranganathan passionately conveyed the librarian’s role in bringing quality

resources to library communities based on local needs In Haines’ (1950) words, libraries should “enrich” (p 16) patrons’ lives For his part, the influential Ranganathan (1964)

highlighted the need to connect local patrons to books in his oft-quoted Five Laws of

Library Science and his belief in “Every reader his or her book” (p 280) According to

these library leaders, libraries are essential in a growing cultural society McColvin (1925) summed up the belief most eloquently,

We consider the library throughout the discussion, not as a separate or

separable institution existing apart from or independent of the life of the

community, but as an integral part of human activity We regard the

library as an organ in the social body, functioning only in relation to the

rest of the organism (p 16)

In their review of recent collection development literature, Bullis and Smith

(2011) noted the continued emphasis on supporting the needs of the local

community

Librarian Expertise

A century ago, books were selected individually in academic libraries by either the library director or faculty members (Mosher, 1983) As publishing and academe expanded into new knowledge areas such as interdisciplinary studies, the academic library director began to delegate the work to specialized staff members or faculty

members (Edelman, 2006; Harris, 1986b, Mosher, 1983) New departments were

developed and devoted to collection development, requiring librarians to develop subject expertise and knowledge of the publishing industry For example, in 1960 the State University of New York at Albany (SUNY/Albany) library had one librarian to select the

books (Bonk & LaCroix, 1980) By 1966, six subject specialist librarians were selecting books Fourteen years later, 12 subject specialist librarians were selecting books The writings of Danton (1935), Edelman (1979), and Atkinson (1984), who are considered influential collection development researchers, emphasized the importance of librarians’ expertise in selection of materials

Danton In an effort to identify necessary parameters for quality collections,

Danton (1935) investigated the organizational characteristics of libraries with recognized quality collections He identified a correlation between the level of responsibility

librarians have in selection, the credentials of the librarians, staff size, availability of selection tools, and the amount of time spent on selection with the quality of academic library collections Based on this research, Danton emphasized the importance of skilled librarians being allowed the time to focus on the collection In the decades since, many professional librarians have confirmed Danton’s findings (Atkinson, 1984; Edelman, 1979; Evans, 2000; Kanazawa, 1991) For instance, Kanazawa (1991) determined that organizational size was a great influence on the type of model implemented and found that institutions larger than 50 staff members should utilize a separate department model

Edelman Edelman’s 1979 description of collection practice has been heavily

cited as a foundation for research regarding collection development Edelman identified three levels of collection development activity The first level involves categorization of audience needs and recognition of the fiscal reality In the second level activity, the focus is on selection of materials with the establishment of criteria and methods In level three, the selections from level two are purchased Although Edelman’s seminal work appears to strongly lean toward operationalized procedures, the three levels in his model

also involve individual practices and behaviors such as knowledge of individual faculty research interests It is particularly noteworthy that Edelman warned against using his work as the basis for automating the decision-making process, highlighting the

importance of individual selectors concerned with their constituents to provide the

“couleur locale” (1979, p 38) that is so central to library values

Atkinson Atkinson (1984) agreed with Edelman in the concept of selection as

part of a whole although still a solitary act According to Atkinson, while the context of a book’s citation, such as the reputation of the publisher or a positive book review, greatly influences decision-making, the individual selector’s subjective judgment is the final arbitrator As he stated, “that the suitability of the cited document is finally determined

on the basis of a context that can only be privately assembled and applied” (Atkinson,

1984, p 114) Atkinson asserted that if there were any overarching organizational factors guiding decisions, they were only derivatives of micro decisions made previously by the selector For him, selection is an art form rather than a practice conducted by a laborer

Advent of Outsourcing, Book Vendors, and Approval Plans

With the advent of U.S library directors and advisory boards choosing to move collection development decisions from within the library to outsourcing collection

management to book vendors, libraries began to move away from what was considered primary tools of selection Book reviews, publisher catalogs, core lists, and

bibliographies were once the collection development librarian’s primary tools of selection (Bonk, Magrill, & Carter, 1979; Evans & Saponaro, 2005; Futas, 1995; Gorman &

Howes, 1989; Tucker & Torrence, 2004) The librarian’s role in contributing to

community discourse through collection development began to change with the continued

growth of the publishing industry and the pricing crises of the 1970s and 1980s when book prices increased at a significantly higher rate than the Consumer Price Index

(Selsky, 1989) Book production in the arts and humanities grew over 62% Books in the social sciences increased by over 90% and book production in science grew 173% (Perrault, 1995) At the same time, book prices increased by 41% These pressures on libraries continued as library budgets stagnated or declined straining staffing levels

(Bullis & Smith, 2011; Demas & Miller, 2012; Reilly, 2013) In an attempt to deal with these pressures and resulting challenges, libraries began outsourcing some aspects of book selection to book vendors through the use of pre-approval purchase plan profiles One of the main motivations in the adoption of approval plans has been the desire for cost savings (Eldredge, 1996; Horava, 2006) As Eldridge (1996) noted in her contemplation

of approval plans, often the only way a library can increase its funding for resources is to save funds elsewhere It is this tightening of budgets and declining staffing levels that leads to growing concerns about the use of approval plans

For the first time, libraries could set up a profile based on their needs with a vendor who would pre-select titles and ship them to the library for "approval." The pre-approval purchase plan profiles, also known as approval-plan profiles, are outlined by the library in terms of subjects, reading levels, and other characteristics Books vendors use these outlines to match books to the library’s purchase plan and send them to the library for approval This approval process is typically based on surface level descriptions of the book in contrast to the traditional user-centered collection development practices of the past based on patron needs There is little interchange between the book vendor and a collection development librarian relevant to factors traditionally considered best practices

in collection development such as the consideration of what Eldeman (1979) called audience-need characterization By 1996, 93% of ARL members reported using approval plans (Flood, 1997) The approval plan model has also expanded to ebook profiles

(Buckley & Tritt, 2011)

As approval plan profiles are based on a set of characteristics such as content level and geographic designations, books are described by the same characteristics, such

as content and geographic designations, in addition to the traditional bibliographic

information To make collection development librarians aware of books that were not gathered from the approval plan profiles, book vendors often use notification slips as illustrated in Figure 1 (Appendix A) Originally, notification slips were cards with the bibliographic information for a particular book so collection development librarians could identify books that were missed by the approval plan Currently, most book vendors and librarians use an online version that enables search results to be sorted by groupings such

as call number range, subject headings or keywords for particular time periods, formats, publishers, etc The same characteristics utilized in the approval plan are available in the notification systems Typical content-level descriptions are juvenile, popular,

professional, and academic (general or advanced) Some book vendors add additional descriptors such as whether or not a text is an essential title on the subject, a

recommended title, or a supplemental title

Many library leaders are concerned that the book vendor ordering process has reduced or eliminated the user-centered focus that professional librarians have

contributed to making library collections meet the needs of the communities they serve (Chamberlain, 1991; Evans & Saponaro, 2005; Okerson, 2005; Serebnick, 1984,

Tonkery, 2001) They believe that the outcome of outsourcing selection will create academic libraries with the same book collections, regardless of the academic programs, students, and faculty they serve Many library critics question whether librarians are really active gatekeepers in public discourse Evans and Saponaro (2005) voiced their concern in stating, "Given today's staffing situation in most libraries, there is a real

danger that the plan will shift from approval to blanket order, simply because the staff has

to attend to more pressing duties" (p 236) As a result, many critics have begun to

question whether librarians are really the active gatekeepers of democracy they claim to

be

Significance

Many librarians are concerned that the increased reliance on approval plans has led to homogeneity in library book holdings as mergers in the book industry centralized many activities in publishing (Okerson, 2005; Serebnick, 1984, Tonkery, 2001) Despite documented benefits of efficiencies in labor costs and discounted book pricing (Bostic, 1991; Eldredge, 1996; Johnson, 2009; Plodinec & Schmidt, 2002), there are strong voices

of concern As Chamberlain (1991) asked and answered in her speech on librarians as gatekeepers, “What happens when a few vast companies control the publishing and other forms of access to information? More and more resources go to supporting them until they are the only game in town” (p 268) Okerson (2005) echoed Chamberlain’s (1991) concerns in her reflection on changes in acquisition processes and as libraries moved from ownership of physical items to licensing access to electronic resources She

expressed concern that as increasing amounts of selection occur through the licensing of bulk collections of ebooks and journal subscriptions, the identification of resources of

particular concern to a local community decreases and as a result the collections in the United States become more and more similar According to Okerson (2005), half of all the books available were published after 1977 Of those, only 24% are held in more than ten libraries and only 5% are held in more than 100 libraries This perceived reliance on book vendors to decide what is supplemental and what is essential has possible

implications for library patrons, collection development librarians, academic libraries, and the universities they serve, as well as the larger scholarly community

Considerations for the patron In a patron-centered academic library, student

and faculty needs must be considered first They need access to a variety of alternative concepts not always represented in the mainstream press to understand and contribute to academic discussions of social, cultural, and political issues (Berman, 1976; Dilevko, 2008) However as budgets become tighter, selectors have become more focused on collecting only core titles to the extent that secondary titles are neglected (Dilevko, 2008; Shipman, 1993, Willett, 1998) Unfortunately, book vendors are often reluctant to cover many small press and professional association titles because they provide little financial gain as opposed to larger publishing houses with larger print runs that offer significant discounts to bulk orders (Anderson, 2004; Eldredge, 1996, Miller, 1992) To serve the diverse needs of undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty, subject

specialists need to move beyond approval plans in order to acquire specialized sources from small presses, professional organizations and international publishers (Brantley, 2010; Dali & Dilveko, 2005)

Considerations for collection development librarians Many collection

development librarians perceive the operationalization of the book selection process as

diminishing their influence (Cohen & Galbraith, 1999; Nardini, Getchell & Cheever, 1996; Womack, Adams, Johnson, & Walter, 1988) Yet even book vendors highlight the importance of librarian expertise As Yankee Book Peddler (YBP) executive Nardini wrote, “Despite a vendor’s best work, no library will have a fully effective approval plan without having staff able to forge and maintain consensus on priorities and procedures” (1993, p 418) Several studies have found significant amounts of literature not selected

by approval plans (Hulbert & Curry, 1978; Lavoie & Schonfeld, 2006; Okerson, 2005; Perrault, 1994; Schwartz, 1992a; Schwartz, 1992b; Schwartz, 1994) As Hulbert and Curry (1978) observed, approval plans cannot replace librarian expertise

Considerations for academic libraries Academic libraries must serve their

constituents who have varying needs by representing these information requirements in their collections As Shipman (1993) explained, “the university library exists within an institution which is specifically defined by the principle of the communication of ideas” (p 18) The university and its various units exist within numerous larger societies that often raise questions of those ideas Numerous disciplines have grown and evolved to include new sub-categories As a result, librarians question academic libraries’ abilities

to support the new multidisciplinary and academic sub-categories with current practices (Brantley, 2010; Greco, Jones, Wharton, & Estelami, 2007; Wilson & Edelman, 1996) Additionally, academic libraries are being called upon to serve non-curricular,

administrative initiatives, such as language learning software to support campus

globalization efforts and to attract international students (Bullis & Smith, 2011; Downey, 2013) It would be an unfortunate irony that as academic libraries become more and more homogenized, their patrons become more and more diverse

Several other studies have documented literature loss (Lavoie & Schonfeld, 2006; Perrault, 1994; Schwartz, 1992a; Schwartz, 1992b; Schwartz, 1994) In anthropology, Schwartz (1992a) found that 40% percent of the anthropology book output for a nine year period was not held in any of the ARL libraries In her award-winning study of the national collection, Perrault (1994) investigated the effects of the declining purchasing ability of academic libraries on the holdings of works held nationwide by examining the acquisitions patterns of ARL member libraries Her study found that coverage of works in the humanities declined by over 31% Not far behind, social sciences coverage declined

by over 28% The sciences fared the best with only a 15% decline Perrault concluded with the concern that " collections of academic libraries in the United States would decrease in diversity and evolve toward a collection resources base made up of core materials—has indeed come to pass" (p 304) More recently, Lavoie and Schonfeld (2006) documented that over 9,000,000 titles are held by only one library in the Worldcat database, which is the largest inventory of academic and public library holdings in the world (OCLC, 2012) From their study of book production and library holdings, they estimate that only two-thirds of all books published each year are collected Such figures led Lavoie and Schonfeld (2006) to question how much of our cultural knowledge base has been lost

Considerations for universities In addition to the social implications of

knowledge creation and development, there are financial considerations in terms of the return of investment (ROI) universities receive when they support diverse library

collections ROI research in academic libraries is just beginning but initial studies into reader purchase cost versus library costs indicate that for every dollar spent on library

resources, the university gets three dollars back in usage costs in terms of faculty time and grants received (King, Aerni, Brody, Herbison, & Knapp, 2004; Tenopir & King, 2007) Noting the increasing importance of grants to university funding, recent research has investigated correlations between library funding and grant funding Tenopir, Love, Park, Wu, Baer, and Mays (2010) recently published the findings of their regression analysis of 10 years of data from six research universities Finding a correlation between increases in library funding and increases in grant funding, they included in the study an investigation of the use of library resources in grant applications and found that

successful grant applicants cited more books and articles in their applications The study also found that for every book or article cited, successful grant applicants read at least 18 other books or articles Simply put, successful grant applicants read more and therefore require access to diverse collections

The concern of many is that the isomorphic behavior of academic libraries has limited their abilities to serve their local constituents and the resulting decline of diverse collections has endangered scholarly communication As purchasing power began to decline, concerns for preserving the human knowledge base began to appear For

instance, budgetary concerns have impacted university presses greatly Budd and Urton (2003) documented the link between academic library purchasing power and university press output Where academic libraries once had direct relationships with university presses, more and more were relying on book vendors instead They cautioned that the university goal of knowledge development and creation is at risk in that “facing an

absence of choice, some work is not being communicated in any medium” (p 12)

Considerations for scholarly communication Online developments have also

created new models of patron-driven acquisition (PDA) where the records for ebooks are loaded onto library catalogs prior to acquisition and are only purchased when users click

to access the books At an ALA Midwinter panel presentation on the future of PDA, Anderson, Bosch, Gibbs, and Sinha (2011), of the University of Utah, University of Arizona, and Duke University, respectively, indicated that a large portion of their

monograph budget was directed toward PDA purchases Such PDA models often rely on the book records from the same book vendors involved in approval plans In studying how these book vendors influence current library holdings, we will gain insight into the future influence of these book vendors in PDA book selection

Many attendees at the aforementioned panel presentation expressed concern for the loss of literature not acquired In response to questions regarding the LIS

profession’s responsibility to preserve the cultural record and avoid homogenization, Anderson (American Library Association Midwinter Meeting panel discussion, January

9, 2011), stated that libraries should rely on a media resource perceived by many to be a monopoly: Google Books It remains to be seen what new collection development

models PDA and Google Books will bring In 2009, Darnton, of Harvard University’s library system, proclaimed that, “Google can make the Enlightenment dream come true” (para 35), yet in the same editorial piece he reminded his audience of concerns regarding monopolistic control and how it can inhibit knowledge distribution Others have sought

to remind us that Google Books is the result of Google’s collaboration with 30

contributing libraries (Lewis, Courant, Farley, Kaufman, King et al., 2010) Pointing out that 75% of the content of Google Books is from libraries, Lewis, Courant, Farley,

Kaufman, King et al observed that it was the collection development work of skilled academic librarians that made Google Books possible If academic librarians no longer acquire books with perpetuity in mind, what will such projects as Google Books be able

to provide for public discourse?

Summary of Concerns

Over the years, book vendors have merged together to the extent that only a few vendors are serving many libraries As a result, LIS leaders have vocalized warnings about collections becoming too homogenized and unable to reflect local need Critics wonder if libraries have wrongly accepted corporate book vendors and the appeal of efficiencies in labor costs and discounted book pricing, and if librarians have abdicated their roles as gatekeepers knowledgeable about books and the diverse communities they serve Are library collections becoming all the same? Statistical examination into the development and construction of library book collections is needed to determine the extent to which library collections are the same or different This study is key to learning about the impact of corporate book vendors on collection development practices in

academic libraries and the present and future role of libraries This study presents an investigation of the influence of book vendors as gatekeepers through an examination of the congruence of education monograph holdings of academic libraries in peer

institutions

Chapter 2 Background and Review of the Relevant Literature

Libraries play a gatekeeping role in public discourse (Alstad & Curry, 2003; Harris, 1986b; McCabe, 2001) However, many in the library and information science (LIS) profession are concerned that years of using third-party book vendors have created homogeneous book collections, which raises questions regarding the influence of book vendors and who the actual gatekeepers are in library book collections This chapter places the study within existing literature in the field It begins with a discussion of critical theory as a perspective for investigating this phenomenon The literature

surrounding gatekeeping theory is reviewed, including a focused discussion of the routine level of analysis and filtering found in gatekeeping theory, and examined Past research

in the area of approval plans and collection development places this study within LIS research As Kurt Lewin (1947) stated in his groundbreaking research on gatekeeping theory, the “first diagnostic task in such cases is that of finding the actual gatekeepers” (p 145) This study seeks to find actual gatekeepers by investigating the effect of book vendors in the gatekeeping process and on the congruence of academic library book collections

Critical Theory

Several theorists within LIS have encouraged the profession to consider critical theory as a framework for questions of influence within the discipline (Budd, 2003; Harris, 1986a; Hussey, 2010; Leckie & Buschman, 2010) In the context of this study, critical theory’s queries into how dominant groups use media to homogenize information sources as a mechanism of social control is useful Early critical theorists proclaimed

that cultural production was controlled by consumer capitalism, which in turn was

controlled by the dominant social system (Horkheimer & Adorno, 1972; Pyati, 2010) As Horkheimer and Adorno (1972) so eloquently stated, “The flood of detailed information and candy-floss entertainment simultaneously instructs and stultifies mankind” (p xv)

In this way, critical theory provides context to explain how Lewin’s gatekeeping process lends itself to the homogenization of information

Such a worldview makes sense to LIS professionals concerned with a perceived homogenization of library collections Their wariness of corporate mergers in the

publishing and book industry (Okerson, 2005; Serebnick, 1984) echoes Horkheimer and Adorno’s (1972) warnings about the dominant control of culture by the few, “Under monopoly all mass culture is identical” (p 121) The dominant system provides structure and organization to increase the efficiencies of society that it in turn homogenizes As Harris (1986a) reminded the LIS field, the questions of how producers of culture are organized, and how those networks and relationships influence cultural production within library activities, are still very present within the profession and require attention Two recent critical theorists, Habermas and Bourdieu, provide additional perspective relevant

to questions of homogenization and the influence of information sources

Communicative rationality Habermas (1989) investigated the use of reason in

what he called the public sphere, where people come together publicly to, “debate over the general rules governing relations in the basically privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange and social labor” (p 27) In the public sphere,

individuals create shared understanding and consensus regarding truth and what is

normatively right in society Such an atmosphere is much like the one many libraries

purport to create through programming and balanced collections (Alstad & Curry, 2003; Berman, 1976; Dilevko, 2008; McCabe, 2001) Academic libraries typically view

themselves as participants in the public sphere by means of providing access to the

literature spurring debates (Sargent, 1993)

According to Habermas (1984), two types of rationality compete for control: instrumental reason and communicative reason Instrumental reason manipulates and controls society by objectifying systems It is the rationality of rules and procedures, and

it dominates knowledge Habermas argued that communicative reason could prevail over instrumental reason with the rational critique of ideas through open, public discourse Rational critique leads to communication action, which allows empowerment and

emancipation from the dominating systems’ controls

Through his labeling of instrumental reason, Habermas (1989) acknowledged the controlling nature of rationalism and the media’s role in that domination He believed that the public sphere began to lose its influence when publishing became more directed

to the masses and based on advertising Rational discourse turned to consumerism in a society that was becoming re-feudalized where people became “passive consumers of infotainment and that their only role is to acclaim the ruling elites’ decisions”

(Thomassen, 2010, p 36) In a re-feudal environment, people are separated from

knowledge producers by middle agents who, as Habermas (1989) put it, “administer the conversation” (p 164) These middle agents work in such social institutions as radio stations and publishing houses Some LIS researchers would include libraries and book vendors in the list of middle agents (Harris, 1986b; Sargent, 1993)

In his work examining the connection between Habermas’ (1984; 1989) work and the gatekeeping activities of collection development, Sargent (1993) argued that it is the

“ethical responsibility” (p 8) of librarians to represent a multitude of voices and truths in library collections in order to support the open discourse of patrons Additionally,

librarians must recognize that collections are not entirely objective but are shaped by society and social relationships, and that determinations of truth may vary across

communities (Berman, 1976; Dilevko, 2008) As Shipman (1993) acknowledged, the declining purchasing power of libraries has led to collections shaped mainly by core titles Alternative considerations of different truths have become secondary additions, thus limiting library patrons’ access and ability to engage in critical discussions

Habitus Partially influenced by Lewin (1947), Bourdieu’s (1988) work heavily

relies on field theory (Martin, 2003; Őzbilgin & Tatli, 2005) to explain how “a feel for the game,” or habitus, influences the creation and distribution of intellectual works (p 782) Cultural practice occurs within a field where the creation of culture is affected by external factors such as rules and conventions that allow particular discourses and

actions It is a “structured structure” (Webb, Schirato, & Danaher, 2002, p 158) where cultural works are created within a group then distributed by intermediaries and later they are filtered by another group All the while, the cultural work is being shaped by the field

as it also shapes how society perceives the world As Budd (2003) noted, libraries could

be seen as social institutions that create cultural products in Bourdieu’s view

To succeed in society, actors must acquire capital such as social capital, cultural capital, or economic capital (Bourdieu, 1993; Webb, Schirato, & Danaher, 2002) They must rely on patronage such as grants or community arts support For distribution, the

cultural producer needs a variety of institutions or structures in the form of agents,

publishers, gallery owners, etc A work cannot be considered legitimate until it has been recognized by established groups In their explanatory text regarding the work of

Bourdieu, Webb, Schirato, and Danaher (2002) used the term “gatekeepers” (p 167) in referring to those serving the role of granting legitimacy It is this role that speaks to many librarians when they describe their societal purpose (Chamberlain, 1991; Lu 2007, Metoyer-Duran, 1993; Oder, 1997) and worries others as libraries begin to rely on

outside organizations more and more (Okerson, 2005)

Understanding the rules and processes is important in Bourdieu’s (1993) work as

it explains how participants can situate themselves in positions that enable them to take advantage of possibilities by engaging in “possible winning strategies” (p 184) Indeed, Bourdieu (1993) believed this to be the purpose of theory in that it “provides the means for knowing what one is doing and for freeing oneself” (p 184) which is the essence of critical theory

Edelman (1979) and Edgar (2003) conceptualized the process of how the values

of the public sphere and the effects of cultural capital translate into selection and how the interaction of organizations and individuals predict gatekeeping through communications Approval plans are similar interactions in that they serve as a connection between

organizations and individuals As such, book vendors attempt to structure their databases and approval plans utilizing categories that reflect the valued characteristics of resources

in academic libraries For academic librarians to maintain their position in academe, it is important for them to identify how the structures of book vendors’ systems influence library collections

Gatekeeping Theory

Many librarians believe the responsibility of selection places them as gatekeepers

to information as they filter and link resources for their patrons (Lu, 2007, Duran, 1993) The activities of filtering and linking are key components of social

Metoyer-psychologist Lewin’s (1947) gatekeeping theory Lewin’s concept of gatekeeping

developed primarily from his study of food purchasing habits in American households

In tracking how food progresses into the home, he noted the importance of position within the field and the people who were in “key positions” (p 143) in moving food Food progresses through channels in various steps such as purchasing, transportation, and cooking As Lewin (1947) pointed out, “[f]ood does not move by itself” (p 144)

Someone in a key position helped to move it at each stage This person is operating a gate where his/her decision to move or not move the food is subject to various forces or co-existing facts such as likes, dislikes, costs, convenience, etc An early library leader, Bostwick (1910), conceived a similar description of the librarian’s role when he wrote of

a librarian as a “distributor” (p 3) who is subject to the same conditions as other

distributors who must meet the needs of clientele A further connection of Bostwick’s (1910) work to Lewin (1947) includes an eerie precursor to Lewin’s description of items flowing through channels as he wrote of libraries as a system of distribution much like hydraulics guide fluid through pipes According to Bostwick (1910), “the laws of

distribution of a collection of objects to a group of persons hold, whether those objects be books or cakes of soap” (p 4) By using the structure of gatekeeping theory, this study seeks to investigate the extent to which book vendors and librarians act as gatekeepers

Lewin (1947) developed his gatekeeping theory through his work in field theory Field theory in the social sciences has its origins in the physical sciences where it is used

to examine the flow of a transmitted force within a spatial area such as gravity (Martin, 2003) A crucial aspect of field theory in terms of methodology is that the force within the field is not visible and cannot be measured directly Therefore, the effects of the forces are measured As Martin (2003) explained in his discussion of field theory,

“While we cannot see magnetic fields, we can quickly come to accept that they are there, and we can understand how to navigate and manipulate them” (p 14) Gatekeeping has grown significantly since Lewin’s (1947) original study identifying individual

gatekeepers to investigations into how routine, organizational, and extramedia forces also act as gatekeepers in the transmission of information

Levels of analysis Similar to Lewin’s (1947) original study on gatekeeping, this

study seeks to identify who the gatekeepers are in the construction of academic library collections Unfortunately, Lewin was not able to develop his theory beyond his initial investigation due to his untimely death prior to the publication of his study However, numerous researchers (Shoemaker, 1991, Shoemaker & Vos, 2009) recognized the

significance of gatekeeping theory and extensively furthered Lewin’s research Over time, these researchers have identified four levels of analysis or forces influencing public discourse: individual, routine, organizational, and extramedia

Individual The individual level considers the influence actors have on the

gatekeeping process As such, research at the individual level looks to models of

thinking and personal characteristics of gatekeepers Much of the research on the

individual level of gatekeeping has occurred in journalism while investigating how

editors select which news items to cover in their publications (Weaver & Wilhoit, 1996; White, 1950) Similarly in library science, the aforementioned collection development models of Edelman (1979) and Atkinson (1984) focused on the cognitive processes of collection development librarians in selection, as have several subsequent researchers (Kovacs, 1990; Rutledge & Swindler, 1987; Williams, 1991) However, Quinn (2007) noted the lack of LIS research on the affective aspect of selection that the communication studies literature emphasized As such, the cognitive models in LIS that collection

development processes primarily focused on became routinized (Edelman, 1979, Evans, 2000)

Schwartz (1989) referred to the tacit knowledge of collection development

librarians in his model of selection that uses bounded rationality and the garbage can model Frustrated with “persnickety” (Schwartz, 1989, p 329) quantitative methods, he explained how selectors use tacit knowledge in decision-making According to Schwartz, collection development librarians have a continual set of problems or needs to address that fill a garbage can As publishers produce more and more books, selectors consider how each book helps the selector address the problems/needs in the garbage can The decisions are not strictly rational as selectors are limited in their abilities to process all the books published yearly but also by such factors as time and budget Bounded by these limitations, selectors cannot always find the best resource but often end up settling for what is good enough

Routine At the routine level of analysis, the commonality of routines across

many organizations is examined (Shoemaker, 1991, Shoemaker & Vos, 2009) These repeated routines are gatekeepers’ regular or recurring processes used in the performance

of their jobs They operate in the boundary between the individual level and the

organizational level, which indicates how organizational operations interact with the individual actor’s decision making In gatekeeping theory, routines provide short cuts for decision making whereby operational rules dictate whether something passes through the channel without the gatekeeper’s intervention Such investigations have been prevalent

in communication studies in examinations into the influence of routines on the content of local news media (Shoemaker, Eichholz, Kim, & Wrigley, 2001), particularly the effect

of newswire services (Brown, 1979; Gieber, 1956; Gold & Simmons, 1965; Whitney & Becker, 1982), and between online and print news sources (Cassidy, 2006) The concern for homogenization in the news led Gieber (1956) to state that the news wire editors were passive gatekeepers and “[t]he press association has become the recommender of news to

the wire editor and thus the real selector of telegraph news” (p 432)

As was stated in the previous section on the individual level of analysis, many of the cognitive aspects of book selection have become routinized In response, several collection development models involve formulaic equations and matrices of inputs

weighted toward specific criteria such as the requestor’s position, the publication of a review, and the reputation of the publisher and author (DePew, 1975; Losee, 1987;

Losee, 1991; Rutledge & Swindler, 1987) The criteria became routines that filter books before they come to the collection development librarian These routines are also

included within approval plan profiles as indicated in the previous chapter’s discussion of book vendor content labels and descriptions

Organizational At the organizational level of analysis, research examines how

routines vary between organizations and filter information before moving it along the

gatekeeping process (Shoemaker, 1991, Shoemaker & Vos, 2009) Again, the

communication studies literature dominates the research of gatekeeping at the

organizational level with investigations into how organizational policy influences which news items are given preference (Attaway-Fink, 2004; Breed, 1955; Reisner, 1992) Following Danton’s (1935) aforementioned influential study, several LIS researchers have examined the influence of organizational structure and policies on collection

development (Edgar, 2003; Feng, 1979; Snow, 1996; Stoffle, Fore, & Allen, 1999)

Additionally, there is the growing reliance of organizations on market data Attaway-Fink (2004) found that market research exercised great influence over content as gatekeepers became driven by demographics As she noted, “[J]ournalists are charged with the responsibility of adapting their views on newsgathering to include the production

of stories that meet target markets” (p 153) Attaway-Fink acknowledged a tension between wants and social responsibility that is readily apparent in the literature on

collection development (Bob, 1982; Gable, 2007; Isaacson, 2006; Rawlinson, 1981) The debate between the social responsibility of collecting only “good books” and giving their patrons what they want even if it is of low quality appears again and again in the history

of LIS

Extramedia The extramedia level of research recognizes that gatekeepers are in

organizations that operate within a field next to other organizations, such as libraries and information technology service companies, in such a way that influences the gatekeeper (Hirsch, 1977; Shoemaker, 1991; Shoemaker & Vos, 2009) Economic and politics forces are obvious examples of such influences (Burch & Harry, 2004; Donohue, Gans, 1979a, Gans, 1979b; Olien & Tichenor, 1989) as are the pressures of technology (Arant